Compromised Design

December 26, 2006

Compromise is the refuge of the inept and weak–minded. It can be described in sugarcoated terms and even associated with lofty ideals for the purpose of misdirection, but compromise is nothing less than failure.

Others will tell you different. They’ll tell you that compromise amounts
to a win/win situation. Bullshit. A compromise means you’ve failed in
one of two ways; either you’ve failed to achieve the appropriate design
(which invites compromises) or you’ve failed to convince your
client to let you provide them with the best design (which also invites compromises).
As the designer,
it’s your job to keep compromise out of your projects. And I don’t mean
that you should limit the compromises; I mean you should eliminate them.
When you think of little compromises for what they really are – little
failures – your mandate should become clear.

Now I’m not talking here about protecting your ego’s integrity. A designer’s
refusal to compromise should have nothing to do with staying true to one’s
own subjective vision. Rather, it’s about not allowing corruption of what
is best for the client. It is the client’s interest we’re looking out
for here, not our own interests. So let’s take a look at the pathology
of compromise and how some work to make compromise an acceptable feature
of the design profession.

Compromise Kool–Aid

For some strange reason there is the expectation from those both inside
and outside the design profession that compromise is inevitable and, even
more regrettably, beneficial in design work. This mistaken and destructive
idea could only have originated with those outside of the design profession.
I’m talking about those with some measure of power and influence and whose
concerns are irrelevant and selfish. In any event, this idea persists
and is perpetuated by many designers and those who associate with them
– all of whom have simply been duped.

One reason that this idea persists is that it is often mistakenly equated
with constraints and collaboration. These two beneficial factors feature
prominently in most design projects so in order to guard against compromise
demagoguery it is useful to first understand the nature of constraint
and collaboration and how they are antithetical to compromise.

Constraints and Collaboration

The common connotation of constraint is somewhat negative. After all,
constraint is, by general definition, a limitation on some sort of freedom.
But the purpose and environment of design is not concerned with freedom.
Rather, design is concerned with producing specific results, communicating
specific ideas, or allowing for specific affordances according to some
specific or general conditions. The constraints associated with a design
project define the role and purpose of design. So actually, design is
enhanced by constraints. Constraints allow design to have a purpose. In
fact, without constraint there is no reason for design.

Compromise is what happens when those who lack relevant understanding
or vision demand that their limited or irrelevant views be represented
despite what is otherwise best.

There is nothing about constraint in the context of design that has anything
to do with compromise. Any compromise must involve some sort of disregard
for the relevant constraints. Some measure of design ineptitude and/or
the imposition of irrelevant concerns is required for this to occur.

Unlike constraint, collaboration is not entirely necessary to design
work, but it certainly can pay positive dividends. Collaboration is the
effort to maximize the benefit of combined understanding and vision. But
collaboration can only take place among those with sufficient relevant
skill, deep (even if different) understanding, and a common commitment
to excellence.

Conversely, compromise limits the utilization of relevant understanding
and vision. Compromise adds irrelevant concerns to the mix. While collaborators
are working toward a common ideal of excellence, those peddling compromise
are instead working toward something different. In most cases this “something”
is little more than the ego-based goal of self-representation.

The Pathology of Compromise

Compromise is common fodder in our daily lives and in many facets of
society. It is necessary in endeavors like politics, for instance, because
that playing field is not defined by mutual interest, clearly defined
constraints, and fundamentally sound vision, but rather by demagoguery,
selective myopia, limited vision, and selfish or misrepresented interest.
In healthy interactions and soberly considered matters, compromise is
indicative of failure.

Compromise is what happens when those who lack relevant understanding
or vision demand that their limited or irrelevant views be represented
despite what is otherwise best. Compromise is the byproduct of
distrust, envy, slight regard, ignorance, apathy, and most importantly,
ego. These elements cultivate an environment where irrelevant concerns
can be rationalized and what was a cooperative effort degenerates into
a bargaining process. Once this happens, positive, contextually-appropriate
outcomes are nearly impossible to achieve. Instead, a compromise
is achieved.

it is useful to first understand the nature of constraint
and collaboration and how they are antithetical to compromise.

In design (and everywhere else), any result of compromise will be less
than it could have been. Always. Compromise is necessary only when none
present know what they’re doing. Compromise is corruption and corruption
has no place in design. A design resulting from compromise is by its very
definition a compromised design. A compromised, corrupted result is not
what we’re hired to produce. Again, responsibility requires that we prevent
compromise and corruption in our work and instead produce excellence.

Excellence is not born of compromise. Excellence is not the result of
capitulation. Instead, excellence is the product of clear vision, superior
insight, and flawless execution. But as excellence is threatening to all
other ideals, it must often be fiercely defended. But more importantly,
it must be competently defended.

Battling Compromise

Among our requisite skills must be the abilities to present information,
defend ideas, and address compromising or irrelevant concerns - all in
a compelling manner. Otherwise we’ll not be allowed to do our best work
for our clients. This is especially true given the fact that we most often
interact with clients from the business world.

One of a designer’s responsibilities is to speak truth to power. The
timid or insecure need not apply.

Compromise is a prominent feature of business and the politics that are
woven into business. So in many cases our clients, out of sheer habit,
expect compromise. It is therefore required that we be prepared
to fend off and effectively dismantle expectations of and efforts at compromise.
Perhaps the best way to do this is to preempt such ideas by exhibiting
a confident and expert manner in client interactions (be the pro they
hired). Otherwise, given the context, another good way to do so is to
appeal to matters of the bottom line. Explain how a specific compromise
takes money out of the client’s bank account and you’ve likely made your
best argument.

Sometimes, however, a confident manner and a financial argument are not
enough. Those accustomed to getting their way, being in positions of power,
are practiced at cutting off their nose to spite their face. This might
be funny (in a sadistic sort of way) if not for the fact that such compromises
mean that we are then participating in the effort to provide the client
with a corrupted design. It’s not easy, but we owe the client better than
that.

One of a designer’s responsibilities is to speak truth to power. The
timid or insecure need not apply. A designer unwilling to do so, and do
so as a matter of course, should choose another profession. Speaking truth
to power is not enough, though. Merely making strong, logical arguments
may not do the trick. So it is required that we be adept at making convincing
arguments that result in the proper accord.

Conclusion

True, this is not easy stuff (it’d be sort of worthless to write
articles about easy stuff). Unless you’re superhuman, compromise
is going to find its way into some of your design projects. It certainly
does with me. But we have an obligation to work on our weaknesses and
work to prevent compromise, so it’s time to recognize compromise for what
it is and develop strategies for eliminating it from our projects.

But first you’ve got to learn to despise compromise. You’ve got to learn
to recognize invalid associations between it and truly useful elements
of design, like collaboration and constraints. You’ve got to get into
the habit of thinking more deeply and more clearly than others, especially
as it relates to your responsibilities as a designer. Your clients are
counting on you to deliver your best work, not compromised versions of
it.